Outrage over Khadr decision is confusing

I listen to the outrage presently being expressed by many Canadians over the $10 million compensation (and apology) presented to Omar Khadr by our federal government. I am confused on three levels:

1) It is widely accepted that Omar Khadr was 15 when he is alleged to have slain an American soldier. In our legal system, a 15year-old is a child. As a father and now a grandfather, I know this to be true personally. Fifteen-yearolds may at times look and act like adults. But they are still children. As Romeo Dallaire said about this, “A child is a child is a child.” The outrage seems to overlook this fact.

2) Khadr is widely referred to as a terrorist. “We have given money and apology to a terrorist.” But his “attack” on a U.S. soldier took place during a skirmish in Afghanistan in which both sides were killing or trying to kill each other. Does that make U.S. and Canadian soldiers also terrorists?

Doesn’t the same language apply to both sides in a conflict?

3) The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled unequivocally that Khadr’s human rights were violated by the Americans and that the Canadian government of the day was a willing accomplice in this violation. Do we want a federal government which violates the rule of law — if we don’t like certain people? The fact that Omar Khadr has an unsavoury family does not eliminate Omar’s own rights of citizenship — at least not in a fair and democratic land.

As I say, I am confused. It seems to me our government did the only right thing. We should never have been a party to the violation of his rights. And the wrong should have been righted a long time ago.